It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if there was an actual income limit and other restrictions?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

But we could have 1,000 Bill Gates running around all with different OS so there are thousands of them and nothing works right and programmers (who struggle to build software for just a few platforms) could spend 100 years coding for thousands of different OS. Paradise!




posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
It would bring our economy to a halt. Money velocity in the markets is already at a low point. Real estate prices might crash. High end automobile manufacturers might go out of business. Luxury goods companies like Tiffany & Co. Would have decreased sales and all of this would lead to higher unemployment rates. It would also deincentivise past higher earners from working or coming up with innovative ideas, as well as, decrease their contributions to charities.

Imo, a better idea would be to end all government social programs (welfare, SS, Obamacare/Medicare, Education, etc.) & use the money spent on these programs to offer a national wage of $30k per year per citizen who is over 18 years old, makes less than $50k per year & who has a net worth less than $300k. Then each citizen can spend the money via the free market in basic needs like housing, healthcare, food, education, etc.. minimum wage could also be abolished under a national wage. It would keep governmnet spending the same but would decrease the physical size of government. It would also help the market operate more freely.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBIZZ
It would bring our economy to a halt. Money velocity in the markets is already at a low point. Real estate prices might crash. High end automobile manufacturers might go out of business. Luxury goods companies like Tiffany & Co. Would have decreased sales and all of this would lead to higher unemployment rates. It would also deincentivise past higher earners from working or coming up with innovative ideas, as well as, decrease their contributions to charities.

Imo, a better idea would be to end all government social programs (welfare, SS, Obamacare/Medicare, Education, etc.) & use the money spent on these programs to offer a national wage of $30k per year per citizen who is over 18 years old, makes less than $50k per year & who has a net worth less than $300k. Then each citizen can spend the money via the free market in basic needs like housing, healthcare, food, education, etc.. minimum wage could also be abolished under a national wage. It would keep governmnet spending the same but would decrease the physical size of government. It would also help the market operate more freely.


The problem with doing that is that when someone pisses away their $30k on heroin, car rims, or baby mamas the same people who support these unlimited entitlement programs will be coming out the woodwork crying about the same inequality they cry about today. It isn't like liberal society is going to all of a sudden be like "too bad, you blew it don't ask me for sh*t." They will drag out the kids and pull at heart strings and we will wind up right back in the same spot.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
There could be a clause added that they are ineligible for the next years national wage unless they can prove they have health insurance & a roof over their head, etc.. Or whatever expenses they accrue via healthcare or housing can be deducted from future national wages. This would incentivise people to pay for health insurance & act more responsibly. There are many details which will need to be sorted out if this plan is ever implemented. Imo, it can decrease the scope of government & uplift free market ideals, while helping the poor obtain basic needs, without raising taxes. It would also deincentivise poorer people from having kids as a source of income, while supporting traditional family values by destroying the mother & government as father paradigm.
edit on 23-6-2017 by JBIZZ because: additional info.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I actually really like the maximum ratio idea.

I personally believe different jobs should be placed in different classes, though.

The janitor makes 5 percent what the ceo does, management and higher expectations jobs, 10-15, for instance. 5 percent of a million is 50,000 still.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

If there were an Income limit and other restrictions? We're already living in a nanny state, a limit on income would be like rolling out the red carpet for 1984 to take over.

I don't think anyone would give up that much without a fight. The rivers would run red if it ever happened ringing in Armegeddon.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

It was tried once. It's the reason why health care is now an expected job benefit.

The Democrats once felt that no one should make more than a certain amount, so they capped salary. So businesses, in order to lure in the best talent to work for them, started to add what were called "benefits" in addition to the capped salary. These were things that were not part of the strict monetary compensation but were considered "perks" or benefits as we call them today. This was how they made their same salary more attractive than someone else's same salary - this or that employer could offer more attractive benefits, and a popular one to offer was health insurance.

When the salary caps were removed, workers then just expected benefits as a matter of course, so those never went away, and we now have the situation with health care that we have today. That is part of where it started - with government meddling into salary caps.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: JBIZZ
It would bring our economy to a halt. Money velocity in the markets is already at a low point. Real estate prices might crash. High end automobile manufacturers might go out of business. Luxury goods companies like Tiffany & Co. Would have decreased sales and all of this would lead to higher unemployment rates. It would also deincentivise past higher earners from working or coming up with innovative ideas, as well as, decrease their contributions to charities.

Imo, a better idea would be to end all government social programs (welfare, SS, Obamacare/Medicare, Education, etc.) & use the money spent on these programs to offer a national wage of $30k per year per citizen who is over 18 years old, makes less than $50k per year & who has a net worth less than $300k. Then each citizen can spend the money via the free market in basic needs like housing, healthcare, food, education, etc.. minimum wage could also be abolished under a national wage. It would keep governmnet spending the same but would decrease the physical size of government. It would also help the market operate more freely.


The problem with doing that is that when someone pisses away their $30k on heroin, car rims, or baby mamas the same people who support these unlimited entitlement programs will be coming out the woodwork crying about the same inequality they cry about today. It isn't like liberal society is going to all of a sudden be like "too bad, you blew it don't ask me for sh*t." They will drag out the kids and pull at heart strings and we will wind up right back in the same spot.


Yeah, I'd like to go to the system the person described to some degree too, but I also know you are right. The same people who keep insisting that it's all for the children will never, ever let the people who fritter it all away inside the first month suffer the inevitable results of their poor choices. They'll whine and cry and call the rest of us horrible for saying they had enough, but they screwed up.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   


The united states economy only works when we have growth. It is unsustainable of course


Yes it's unsustainable and immoral. There are industries that don't require growth and we need to shift more people into those versus having so much of our economy based on contruction, energy,military etc. We need more of our economy focused on science, agriculture, education, etc rather than having everything based on the most destructive and greediest people and industries. We should have a huge tax on everything above a certain level a year to bring sanity back to our economy and stop destroying our planet and our people.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join